The issue came up when a Yahoo! News reader asked, Given that you oppose gay marriage, what do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? What is your solution? Romney and Gingrich answered that while they support limited protections for gay and lesbian couples, both believe marriage should remain a heterosexual union.

Gingrich offered a two-part answer, which included the suggestion that gay couples are merely friends and that the media was biased on the issue.

I think what I would say is do we want to make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends occur For example, you run a hospital. If there are visitation hours, should you be allowed to stay there. There ought to be ways to designate that. You want to have someone in your will, there ought to be ways to designate that.

But there's a huge jump from being understanding and considerate and concerned, which we should be, to saying we're therefore going to institute the sacrament of marriage as though it has no basis. The sacrament of marriage was based on man and woman, has been for 3,000 years, is at the core of our civilization, and is something worth protecting and upholding.

Gingrich drew applause from the audience when he scolded the media.

You don't hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won't accept gay couples? Which is exactly what the state has done. Should the Catholic church be driven out from providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won't give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration.

The bigotry question goes both ways and there's a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concern on the other side and none of it gets covered by the news media.

Romney said allowing gay couples to marry could cause problems in education and religion.

To say that marriage is something other than the relationship between a man and a woman, I think, is a mistake, Romney said.

You don't hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won't accept gay couples? Which is exactly what the state has done. Should the Catholic church be driven out from providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won't give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration.

Kudos to Gingrich for taking on the media bias!

Catholic Ping Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

2
posted on 01/09/2012 2:29:17 PM PST
by NYer
("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)

I am sick to death of all the bleating from approx 3% of our country population.

1. Going to a hospital? I have been in a hospital a few times. I am single. No family nearby. I have been able to designate ANYONE I wanted to see me. No restrictions. IMO, this is a totally bogus argument on the part of the LGBT group.

2. Wish to make sure that whatever you have accumulated in your life goes to whomever you wish when you die? WRITE A WILL !!!!!! Again—I am single. No spouse—no living children. I can give whatver I want to whomever I want. A clause in my will says that anyone who challenges my will cannot inherit a thing—even if they were already named for something. Writing a will in 2012 is not a big deal. I think I paid about $50 for the first one I wrote in 1966 when I bought my first property.

I typed that entire will into my computer & have changed whatever I needed to change as the years have passed. I am currently updating it again. More details about certain family heirlooms, etc. Then I make sure to have 3 witnesses see me sign the newest will, none of which have any inheritance from my estate.

I then send copies of my newest will to EACH & EVERY person named in the will. I want to make sure that they know they are inheriting SOMETHING & I want to make sure my wishes are followed.

I do NOT have a family member as executor. I have a trusted CPA I worked with for years as such. He has ‘no skin in the game’ & will follow my wishes.

Since I have large animals, I have a list of ‘Emergency” numbers on the refrigerator so they will be properly taken care of. Since I live rural, neighbors watch each other out here & if something doesn’t look right, I will be checked on. I can count on that.

The constant whining by the LGBT followers is beyond disgusting. They can do the same legal acions the rest of us can make. They are allowed to buy property with both people qualifying—that is no different than a man & wife, both of whom are working & both of which incomes are needed to do so. They can have ‘Civil Unions’ in many states.

Having a life style which leads to AIDS and other cost oppressive problems in the future doesn’t mean that you can REQUIRE an employer to cover your ‘partner’ for health care.

IMO, THIS is the major target of the LGBT community. They want free health insurance for their life style choices, many of which are disasterous.

If I were an employer & was ordered to provide such health insurance, I would either drop all health insurance for ALL my employees or I would re-organize my company with only family members as employees. A poor choice in life style will not be a bankrupting status for me. They can KMA.

Newt did a great job reiterating that traditional marriage has been around for 3000 years- but he should have gone a step further and proclaimed the reason WHY it has been around for 3000 years- so that a civilization has an institution for the healthy cultivation of future citizens. And that includes having a MOTHER and a FATHER to raise children.

We got into trouble when we let the govt. get involved in funding Christian social services. You can’t serve both God and Mammon. Since normal lifelong heterosexual marriage was once a sacramental function of the church, perhaps it should again become only that. People who want to shack up with their own sex, or with animals or whatever, can have some shyster write up a contract specifying the “rights” of the cohabitors. Leave both the govt. and church out. Lawyers are whores anyway; they’ll do anything if the price is right.

Gay marriage was never “passed” on his watch. Mitt ordered it. The Massachusetts legislature did not pass it. They were too afraid. Mitt Romney’s governor’s office itself instituted gay marriage. He ordered the justices of the peace and the clerks not to discriminate against gays wanting to marry. Mitt ordered that the forms be changed to accommodate gays. The Mass. supreme court asked the legislature to change the law because it knew the state’s constitution did not allow them to create law from the bench. But the legislature did nothing. The only reason there is gay marriage in Massachusetts today is Mitt Romney.

I am sick to death of all the bleating from approx 3% of our country population.

Ditto! Not just the bleating but the propaganda stemming from mainstream programming. The other night, TLC's program "4 Weddings" included one bride marrying her gay partner. After a restless night's sleep trying to expel those images, I tuned into Food Network's 'Chopped' the following evening, only to see a woman talk about her 'wife' ... huh? /sigh Even more disturbing is the committed agenda of the LGBT community to educate our children with their propaganda via the public education system.

Bottom line, their agenda has nothing to do with marriage but to attack christianity.

14
posted on 01/09/2012 3:23:08 PM PST
by NYer
("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)

So here's a thought: If the candidates could talk about issues that matter to the vast majority of the country, the topic of gay marriage wouldn't come up in these debates. And then, surprise surprise, there wouldn't be a hit piece to be written! But since the liberal media is always moderating these debates, and since the liberal media is always bringing up their pet issues, the candidates have to keep responding to these silly questions.

It's all a setup. Liberal media asks any question that the Democrats are in favor of. GOP candidate says they are against it. Liberal media writes a hit piece because GOP candidate said he's against it. Whatever “it” is.

Lather, rinse, repeat. Over and over again.

Only Newt stops them in their tracks and challenges the question in the first place. He's not doing it as much as he used to though. I wish he would go back to doing that in the debates!

How valid are the claims that Romney played an active role in bringing in gay marriage?

IIRC, he gave lip service to one man-one woman, but offered no real resistance, even ordering court clerks to perform such as soon as the legislature put it through (he also offered no objection when the legislature -- illegitimately -- refused to put the question on the ballot).

Romney is a lying sack. He went out of his way to permit several hundred "gay couples" [puke] to marry. He came out in full support of homosexual agenda stuff while running and while Governor. He pandered to the "gay" community. He's nauseating. He's foul. He's a liar.

17
posted on 01/09/2012 3:56:31 PM PST
by little jeremiah
(We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)

Gay marriage was never passed on his watch. Mitt ordered it. The Massachusetts legislature did not pass it. They were too afraid. Mitt Romneys governors office itself instituted gay marriage. He ordered the justices of the peace and the clerks not to discriminate against gays wanting to marry. Mitt ordered that the forms be changed to accommodate gays. The Mass. supreme court asked the legislature to change the law because it knew the states constitution did not allow them to create law from the bench. But the legislature did nothing. The only reason there is gay marriage in Massachusetts today is Mitt Romney.

18
posted on 01/09/2012 3:58:29 PM PST
by little jeremiah
(We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.